Hello! Hello! Hello! Welcome to episode 44 of We Don’t Talk About P-word. This will be our last episode before breaking for the holidays. We will be taking the next few weeks off to celebrate and do some writing. (We may even launch a new website when we get back, so stay tuned.)
Before we go, I am going to tell you a story. It will be a true, historical story, of course. I am going to tell you this story and then tell you why it affects us today. This story is a bit different. As we go along, you will wonder why I’m telling you, but I promise it will be clear by the end. I am also willing to bet how you think it ends is not at all where I am going with it. So don’t try to predict it and try to enjoy the ride.
I thought with the coming holidays this would be a great topic to end our year. Don’t worry. I won’t ruin Christmas or even New Year's for you.
So, with no further ado, let’s get into it.
The United States has a complicated relationship with alcohol. This was true even before we were Americans. Before we go any further, let me be clear that at no point will I be discussing the morality of drinking. Well, I won’t outside of how it pertains to the historical events. The purpose of this chat is not to encourage or discourage anyone from having a drink. See? I’m not going to ruin your New Year's celebration.
All right, I guess there was a little further ado. But with that out of the way, let’s get started. The United States has a complicated relationship with alcohol…
Beer and wine came over on the Mayflower. Even before that, settlers in Jamestown, VA brought their own spirits. It is important to note that there was an excellent reason for this, well outside of a good time that is. Water was often dangerous to drink. The types of filtering and purifying we do today were not possible or even understood then. Water contained microorganisms that could cause sickness and even death. The fermentation process removed most of them, making alcohol safer to drink. Even children would drink fermented drinks. It wasn’t ideal, but this is the way early settlers and Americans got their daily water intake.
Early on, the spirits were weaker in potency. It mostly consisted of beers and ciders. Over time, stronger distilling processes emerged. We began to see stronger spirits like rum, brandy, and whiskey. As time went on, drinking became viewed as a problem. In 1730, the British Parliament grew alarmed at Georgia’s abuse of these spirits. They passed a law that prohibited the transport of spirits into the colony. 
Well, Americans are not ones to be separated from their spirits. That is even before we were Americans. Georgians abandoned farming and began to run their own stills. They smuggled spirits in from South Carolina. After thirteen years of a failed law, it was repealed.
By the time of the Revolution, whiskey and rum distillers were well established. Even Founders like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had home distilleries. There were taverns in every city and town. Taverns were some of the best places to talk politics and current events and hear the latest gossip. It was even possible to play a part in historical events at a local tavern. One such tavern is Tun Tavern in Philadelphia, PA. Tun Tavern is considered the birthplace of the United States Marine Corps.
The legend is that the first Marine recruiter (who happened to be the tavern owner) paid for drinks. He then waited outside to sign drunk men up for the Marine Corps. As a Marine, I can absolutely accept this as our origin. It makes too much sense. To this day, Tun Tavern, though it no longer exists, is revered by Marines. You can find its historical marker at South Front and Samson in Philadelphia.
Let me further reiterate the American relationship with alcohol. The first tax on a domestic product was a tax on the transportation of whiskey. The first post-Constitution uprising was the Whiskey Rebellion. The United States’ first surgeon general worried about our alcohol consumption. He warned us against imbibing whiskey and rum, proclaiming it bad for our health. By the early 1800s, adult males were drinking between seven and twelve gallons of alcohol a year. If you are familiar with the bottling of spirits, that’s, on the low end, 14 handles of liquor in a year. By themselves…
There was a time that I could drink, and I mean really drink. This would be more than even I could handle.
Throughout our history, you can see this complicated relationship. John Adams spoke against taverns and hard liquor. Andrew Jackson’s administration would end the whiskey rations for soldiers. Abraham Lincoln gave a speech early in his career praising temperance. (Temperance is abstinence from alcoholic drinks.) Andrew Johnson was reportedly drunk while giving a speech at Lincoln’s second inauguration. Ulysses Grant was an admitted alcoholic. Despite many reports to the contrary, he tried and mostly kept it in check.
Yep, the American relationship with alcohol is long and complicated.
A temperance movement began before the Civil War in the 1840s. It was galvanized through religious support from both Catholics and Protestants. By 1855, thirteen states had passed prohibition laws. To fight the Civil War, the states needed tax revenues, so all but Maine would repeal their laws. The outrage over ‘corrupt ungodly’ saloon culture persisted.
After the war, the temperance movement roared back. This time, it was mostly spearheaded by women. Women of the time blamed domestic violence and financial issues at home on drinking. The movement birthed temperance groups. This included the Women’s Christian Temperance Union and the Anti-Saloon League. The latter would use this movement to attack immigrants. They claimed immigrants from heavy drinking cultures were weakening our moral fiber. This was particularly true of their attacks on the Germans and the Irish. Carrie Nation????
After we entered war with Germany in 1917, the temperance movement saw their chance. Their first success was wartime prohibition. They halted the distillation of alcohol. The reason provided was to conserve grain and wheat for food production. Capitalizing on the anti-immigrant sentiment, they began pushing for an amendment. In August of 1917, the Senate passed the 18th Amendment. In December, the House concurred and in January, the first state ratified it. By January 16, 1919, the final state needed for ratification did so.
On January 17, 1920, the 18th Amendment went into effect. The part that matters reads as follows. “…the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.”
Note that drinking or owning liquor was not illegal. Our access to alcohol was outlawed. Manufacturing, selling, and transporting liquor was illegal. This would make evading the law easy. Well, that and loopholes written into the Volstead Act (the law to govern prohibition). Doctors could still prescribe limited amounts for medicinal purposes. Alcohol bought before prohibition could still be legally consumed and shared. There was even a grape juice concentrate sold with a “warning” label that detailed how to ferment it. Jurors sitting in judgment of these crimes didn’t even take the law seriously. They would often acquit those involved in alcohol-related crimes.
Like many laws, prohibition would have a disproportionate effect on the poor. It was more readily and easily enforced in rural areas.
It was never a question of where you could get liquor. It was only a question of how much it would cost. IZZY EINSTEIN??? 
Prohibition also brought on a host of criminal endeavors. Bootlegging proliferated. Speakeasies replaced bars and nightclubs. Moonshine and bathtub gin replaced whiskey and rum. Organized crime found its footing.
Al Capone earned $60+ million annually from bootlegging operations. That’s over a billion dollars today.
It didn’t take long for prohibition to wear out its welcome. The costs, not only monetary, were too high. Fanatical forces had taken over the temperance movement. It became the home of militant religious groups and racist groups like the Ku Klux Klan. This turned off moderate supporters of the temperance movement. Restaurants had to close because they couldn’t turn a profit without liquor sales. People died from homemade, unregulated liquor. Many states, losing tax revenue, could no longer afford to maintain infrastructure.
The Great Depression would put the final nail in prohibition’s coffin. In February of 1933, congress proposed the 21st Amendment. By December, the final state necessary ratified it. Thirteen short years after its start, prohibition ended. That was the same amount of time it took for the British Parliament to repeal the law in Georgia in the 1700s.
So… why have I spent the last five minutes telling you the story of prohibition?
Like most of our history, I find it interesting. Prohibition and its repeal are almost unique. As I said, drinking and possessing alcohol was never illegal. What was illegal was the manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcohol. In other words, we banned everything necessary to get the alcohol from the grain and wheat to your glass. Access. Access to alcohol was what we lost the right to. The 21st Amendment changed that. The 21st Amendment enumerated our right to access alcohol.
The reason I say it is almost unique is because… there is another. Only one other right to an object is enumerated in the Constitution. That right comes in the form of the Second Amendment. Trivia time! Americans currently have an enumerated right of access to only two inanimate objects. Arms and alcohol. Is there a more appropriate representation of the United States than this? I'm going to say probably not.
The Constitution affirms that our access to alcohol and arms may not be infringed. That is, within the confines of the laws of each state, or at least we accept that caveat about alcohol.
The drinking age after the repeal of prohibition was 21 in most states. After we lowered the age to vote to 18 (1971), many states lowered their drinking age as well. An increase in automobile accidents and other alcohol-related teenage deaths prompted change. The loss of children is a loss to our future, after all. The age was again raised to 21 in most states. The final holdouts were South Dakota and Wyoming. Both finally changed their age in 1988. (In the interest of facts, Louisiana lasted longer due to loopholes in the law. That’s a whole other conversation.)
Other things that state alcohol laws regulate include who can manufacture it. They regulate who can sell it through liquor licenses. They regulate punishments for contributing to minors and driving while drinking. Packaging is regulated, with specific information and warnings required. There are regulations to govern its production and many others designed for safety. There are regulations for its importation. 
Before all of you alcohol lovers plan a protest in your dry counties, I should add a caveat. Like your right to happiness, it isn’t the government’s job to provide it. It is their role to ensure you have access. Technically, you have access by driving across the county line. It may not be convenient, but you have access in your state.
Also, there is a caveat in the language repealing the amendment. It states that alcohol access “…in violation of the laws thereof [the state], is hereby prohibited.” This is a bit of a catch-all saying that state laws involving alcohol are supreme. It means if states wanted to continue prohibition, they could. Maine did for a while.
This caveat was unnecessary. The Tenth Amendment delegates anything not specific to the states. The necessary and proper clause gives Congress the power to pass laws they deem necessary and proper. All the amendments do is ensure access; it doesn’t say how that access is afforded. To be fair, it may not be binding. Unlike arms, no one has questioned their unfettered right to alcohol in the Supreme Court. We have accepted those laws and regulations as in society’s best interests.
Not so much with arms. Both are in the Constitution as rights. Only one is defended by saying firearm regulation is unconstitutional. Only one gets the Supreme Court’s blind protection. Only one has a lobbyist doing more harm to enthusiasts than helping.
I can feel the collective sucking of air as many of you begin to rage about where you think this is heading. Remember what I told you in the beginning. It’s not going where you think. By the end, whether you are a gun lover or a gun hater, you’re probably not going to like what I have to say.
So, let’s ignore our Constitutional right of access to guns and alcohol. Let’s instead explore what it means.
Let me begin by saying I support the Second Amendment wholeheartedly. I like guns. I’ve owned guns in the past. I will own more in the future. As a Marine and a soldier, some of my favorite experiences were firing different weapons. Even as an adolescent, I enjoyed shooting. The early mornings at the range I could do without. All you military members out there know what I’m talking about. But shooting has always been fun to me. From handguns to the 20mm cannon on an LAV, I have always enjoyed guns.
As much as I enjoy guns, I realize that there is a reckoning coming. We have a problem here in the United States and we cannot continue down the same path. If you love firearms, if you believe in the Second Amendment, we must be part of the solution. We must stop contributing to the problem.
First, let’s dispel the propaganda that the only solution to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. If you have been paying attention, you know that is not true. The police officers in Uvalde, Texas waited outside while children were being murdered. There are others like “owning a gun makes you safer,” or “gun laws don’t work.” Neither is true, but the good guy one is the most persistent. As of 2022, this excuse is no more. The events in Texas mean we should never utter this propaganda again.
You know me; I am a fan of statistics, so let’s talk about the numbers. We’re going to focus on children. People seem to have more empathy for children than they do adults. Considering that sad fact, we’re going to try and stay within that parameter. 
The last year that we have certified numbers for is 2021. In 2021, 4,752 children lost their lives to firearms. It was close to a 9% increase from 2020. From 2018 to 2021, the firearm death rate for children rose by 41.5%. 2020 even saw a historical first. It was definitely not a good first, but a first, nonetheless. The firearm death rate for children was higher than those dying in automobiles. That trend continued in 2021. It is likely it will remain true as we compile data for succeeding years.
Here's a quick statistic about total gun deaths. In 2021, we lost close to 50,000 Americans to guns. 54% of those were from suicide, and 43% from murder. Roughly eight in ten murders in the US in 2021 involved a gun. This is a steady trend that has been rising. That is likely to remain true for the foreseeable future.
It’s obvious that the loss of life to guns doesn’t move people to care. That’s something I find ironic. We saw that cars were contributing to Americans’ deaths. We passed laws mandating speed limits, car seats, and seatbelts. Alcohol was tearing apart homes, and we passed an amendment. We realized that was heavy-handed and pulled back. When children started dying from alcohol-related events, we raised the drinking age. Secondhand smoke was giving people cancer. We passed laws mandating where you can smoke. I’m not sure why though, because you know cigarettes don’t kill people. It’s the people smoking them.
For some reason when people with guns kill people, the guns get a pass. Yes, I get it there is an amendment. As I showed you, there is one for alcohol too. There is nothing that says Congress (and especially state legislators) cannot regulate firearms. Well, there’s nothing but partisan propaganda. If there is access, your rights have not been infringed no matter the hoops you must jump through. Before Roe vs Wade was overturned, that was the argument made for single abortion clinics in a state. Why is it not the same for firearms? Why the hypocrisy?
If I can’t convince you with deaths (and, you know, common sense), can I convince you with dollars? I mean that seems to be all Americans care about. This may seem a bit insensitive or macabre, but when you talk about policy it often is. If you have ever worked in insurance, it’s like using actuarial tables.
When the government wants to regulate business, it looks at cost-benefit analysis. This is true even when it involves death. They look at how many deaths are caused per year by what they are looking to regulate. They take that number and multiply it by what we call the value of a statistical life or VSL.
As of 2022, that dollar amount, determined by the government, is $12.5 million. This number is the average financial loss to their family. Remember, this is an average. It does not take into consideration age or health. That means that younger deaths with a lifetime to live and work are worth the same as older deaths. Obviously, we don’t know when anyone will die, so like I said, it’s a bit insensitive and macabre.
They take the VSL and multiply it by the number of expected deaths. The result is then compared to the cost of implementing the regulation. If the cost of implementing is more than the total VSL, the regulation is not implemented. If the total VSL is more than the cost of implementation, it is (generally speaking). Now, other things go into it, but this is the basic way we make these types of policy decisions.
First, I don’t like reducing a person’s worth like this. I also don’t think there is currently a better way. Second, this will again be insensitive, but since most people are when it comes to guns, I hope you will forgive me. The death of an American before they have worked a full life hurts more than their families. Losing their income, spending, investment, and taxation hurts their country, states, and communities. Their mere existence contributes to the economy. I didn’t even mention their intellectual contributions. What if the person who would cure cancer was killed in the most recent school shooting? It is impossible to know the lost potential of an adult’s death. A child’s is even harder.
However, the government must have metrics to use to make policy. So, the VSL is the number we go with, even if it ignores the age of those lost. Let’s go back to 2021. In 2021, the VSL was $11.8 million. In 2021, 4,752 children lost their lives to guns. That is over $56 billion in unrealized income in only one year. Imagine what an extra $56 billion would mean for our economy. Imagine what potential we have lost as a nation because of this plague on our children.
For most, it’s nothing more than an abstract. That is until it happens to your child.
Before I go, I want to talk about one more reason to consider being part of the solution. I doubt I have moved the needle for most yet. Since Columbine in 1999, there have been 389 school shootings. Close to 360,000 students have been exposed to gun violence at school. Between writing and posting this episode, the number will likely increase. These numbers do not count parents, teachers, and emergency responders. Each of these cohorts is forever affected by these tragic events.
Again, I like statistics. 60% of Americans say gun violence is a major problem. 58% of US adults favor stricter gun laws. 32% of parents are 'very or extremely' worried about a shooting at their child’s school. Another 37% are 'somewhat' worried. Only seven percent are not at all worried. The data also finds that this is largely divided along partisan lines, but not all. Both parties agree that raising the age to buy a gun to 21 is a good idea. They also agree that preventing the mentally ill from having access is important. Still, we achieve nothing. We must keep in mind that as things currently sit, those percentages are only going to rise.
It all boils down to propaganda from both sides. Neither is being honest. Both are playing on fears. The National Rifle Association (NRA) is a prime example. They do their very best to scare their members into not supporting any type of gun regulations.
When I was in grad school, during a class focused on lobbying, we had a guest speaker. This speaker was a lobbyist for the NRA. Their lobbying strategy was to say ‘no’. No negotiation, no nuance; the answer is no. He told us that the most powerful way to lobby was to pick a single issue and convince your adherents to always vote no. Ignore the nuance and vote no. That is exactly the strategy the NRA has adopted, rather than having a conversation. Rather than discuss how we can improve gun safety, they refuse all gun regulation. The NRA ceased long ago representing the sportsman, the hunter, or the gun aficionado. Today, they only represent the Corporate Political Agenda.
They protect gun manufacturers. They protect abusers. They ensure our children… are not protected.
Here is what it boils down to. Let’s say you are a hunter or collector. You are a good guy with a gun. You are a gun enthusiast. You believe in the deterrent nature of our gun culture. (Though, its actual effect is worth considering. Is it the guns or the oceans separating us from our enemies?) If you support the Second Amendment at all, this is the time to consider what that means.
We are creating generations (yes, generations) of Americans who despise the Second Amendment. Currently, there is no stomach for repealing the Second Amendment. For now, the Second Amendment is safe. But how long will it be? Millennials have led the charge because they have been the most affected. Their own time in school and now their children remain in danger. Generation Z grew up afraid to go to school because they never knew if today ‘was that day’. The newest generation is beginning to feel the stresses of gun violence as they head to school. Even Gen X parents feel and fear the increase in gun violence in schools. That’s not to mention all the teachers, doctors, and first responders. They have seen the horrors of gun violence in children. These generations are the future of American politics and policy. If we aren’t careful, we are creating policymakers determined to end the Second Amendment as we know it. 
Supporters of the Second Amendment will have only ourselves to blame. When there is a stomach for improving instead of repealing an amendment, we spit in their face. When there is a demand for restricting the mentally ill from obtaining guns, we ignore the People. We offer thoughts and prayers instead of solutions after every new incident. We listen to propaganda. We listen to lobbyists. 
We ignore our children's wellbeing. We ignore our children's future. We ignore our nation's future. 
The NRA is the unholy child of the Corporate Political Agenda. The NRA is nothing more than a special interest dedicated to profit. Its propaganda is only designed to serve the gun manufacturers, never the People. We must reject their propaganda and work toward common sense regulations. If we don’t, we will eventually face a government whose only answer to guns is “NO.” 
I have no desire to get rid of the Second Amendment. It is important for national security. Hunting is an excellent way to provide for your family. Americans have a right to protect ourselves and a duty to protect our democracy. But I recognize a problem when I see one, and right now the United States has a problem with gun violence. This problem is full of nuance. What works in rural Arkansas does not work in New York City. We must consider and enact laws with that in mind. If we don’t, it’s only a matter of time before the majority wants to be rid of it.
That’s why I started with prohibition. I wanted to show you that the Constitution ensures our right to only two things. That could become one. More importantly, I wanted to show you that amendments are not permanent. This has been part of the theme of this podcast. Don’t stress bad laws and amendments because they can be repealed. Hell, they can even have sunset clauses included. Action is more important than inaction over worrying about bad laws. It was important to show that even amendments you do support can be lost.
If we don’t do more to protect the People from gun violence, there will come a time when there won’t be a second amendment. The time to act is now, while there is still plenty of support for the Second Amendment. The time to enact common sense gun legislation is now before it gets worse.
Imagine you drove to work every day, and every day you got a flat because of a pothole in the road. You would pressure the city government to fix it. If you got fed up enough, you would run for office to fix it yourself. On the grand scale, that is a minor inconvenience. Gun-related deaths are so much more. That is the mindset of the youngest generations today. Gun violence is the pothole, and they want it fixed.
Many people don’t understand guns. This describes most Democrats in office if I’m being honest. They only understand their eradication. It’s up to gun enthusiasts to help guide it instead of saying no. If we don’t work together now, we may not get a choice later.
As we continue to discuss an independent president, we will discuss guns further. The Second Amendment can be protected while enacting common sense gun legislation. An independent president must make this part of their agenda for the People. I wanted to provide a foundation for this agenda that we will discuss in the future. Hopefully, it is a foundation that opens your mind to new ideas.
If you care more about the Second Amendment than owning the liberals, then you must be part of the solution. If you’d rather own the libs than protect our children, then you’re a terrible person. No number of facts or common sense will change your mind. I am willing to bet there is more of the former than there is of the latter. We need a leader that feels the same.
We must protect our children's future. We must protect our nation's future.
We can achieve that… only together.
We the People are the Power.